Commentary

ESPN's Ombudsman Good For Viewers, Good For Business

It’s worth a long pause to appreciate how remarkable it is that ESPN has an ombudsman.  The most influential entity in sports doesn’t have to justify its decisions or acknowledge its faults. Its audience isn’t going anywhere, at least en masse. And yet, it allows an outsider seemingly carte blanche to serve as a viewer/consumer representative and rip away at its executives and on-air personalities.

advertisement

advertisement

That takes confidence and courage, along with respect for the audience and getting things right with facts and presentation. Not many media companies go that route. How appetizing is it to pay someone to chastise you?  

The Washington Post recently dropped the traditional ombudsman’s role after 43 years. The ancient New York Times didn’t have what amounted to one until 2003 and only then in the wake of a plagiarism scandal. The Los Angeles Times has a readers’ representative, which is what the Washington Post now has.

NPR has an ombudsman. But what about TV networks? Notably those with vaunted news operations.

CBS News dabbled in the space starting in 2005, the same year PBS hired Michael Getler to serve as its ombudsman. Getler, a former Washington Post ombudsman, continues in the role.

ESPN hired its first of now five ombudsmen in 2005. Notably with its “Outside the Lines” and its slew of online reporters, ESPN frequently shows a commitment to top-quality sports journalism.

So much so, a top Fox Sports executive recently tipped his cap to its ability to maintain independence while reporting about leagues where it has business partnerships. Fox’s Randy Freer was impressed enough to wonder how well the coming Fox Sports 1 will navigate a church-state separation.

“They’ve done a great job,” he said. “We’ll see where we fall in that line.”

Perhaps the most notable time ESPN buckled didn’t really involve the news operation. A drama about NFL players, “Playmakers,” reportedly was pulled after the NFL complained.

ESPN is the only brand more worried about the NFL than NSA with an ombudsman. Sports, though, has taken on such a wide-reaching role in society. ESPN sets much of the agenda on how it is covered. So, it deserves credit for offering an opportunity to bring an element of checks and balances to the sports media at-large, even though its ombudsman’s role is to monitor its work.

Certainly, that appears to be how its newest critic-in-chief, Robert Lipsyte, views the role he began last month. The former New York Times columnist with experience in TV news offered the following statement upon his 18-month appointment:

“I’m thrilled at the chance to help the ESPN audience -- which means just about all sports fans -- to understand how the decisions are made, or not made, that affect the presentation of its sports news and entertainment. Sports is an immensely important aspect of American social, moral and economic life and ESPN is the most important window on sports. My job is to keep that window transparent.”

Lipsyte has come out with heat. In his first column on June 28, he revisited an embarrassing matter at ESPN that occurred two months before: an “Outside the Lines” episode after NBA player Jason Collins said he was gay. What went wrong is layered, but the principal failure was allowing a reporter -- whose role should have been to offer insight into league reaction -- to offer his own opinions on homosexuality, which turned out to be blatantly homophobic.

In another column in the wake of ESPN’s massive coverage of NBA free agent Dwight Howard deciding which team to join, Lipsyte suggested ESPN was favoring ratings over journalism and raised the issue of using anonymous sources properly.

But while ESPN’s raison d'être for an ombudsman may be journalistic quality or making sure it doesn't abuse its position, it’s also good business.

Yes, screwing up facts in reporting isn’t going to endear it to viewers. But, issues raised about whether ESPN is spending too much time covering Dwight Howard or Tim Tebow or not enough on the Stanley Cup or UFC might lead viewers to check out how it is handling future big stories or whether it is giving scant attention to others.

There is widespread blasting of ESPN morning debate show “First Take.” If Lipsyte takes it on with profound commentary – or even praises it as others chastise it – that could persuade people to check it out.

If reporters delve into opinion and Lipsyte blasts them and ESPN management, people may want to watch for signs reporters have changed or management has issued a policy change.

With leadership comes scrutiny. ESPN takes a lot of flack. Certainly, the simmering criticism that it’s causing cable bills to become too high is unwelcome. But when it comes to choices on what and how it covers something, would it want it any other way?

It means people are paying attention. The ombudsman may not write the most widely read columns, but if done well, they can certainly help with that.

Next story loading loading..